Whether fervent disciple or raging critic, on one thing we can all agree was
better during Margaret Thatcher’s time at No 10: at least when she was in
charge no-one would have dared elicit a comment from the Prime Minister
about football.

Bigmouth strikes again: Prime Minister David Cameron should not be involving himself in footballing mattersPhoto: GETTY IMAGES

But there was David Cameron this week, the man who likes to claim he is her political heir, willingly giving his opinion on the errant Liverpool striker Luis Suárez and his habit of snacking on opponents. It was not a favourable one: Suárez deserved significant punishment for sinking his teeth into Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic last Sunday, he said. His tone suggested this was a matter of grave national import, requiring immediate recourse to authority. And there were most of us thinking it was no more than a storm in a sporting tea cup.

The economy is flat-lining, in Syria the Assad regime is deploying chemical weapons, the Eurozone continues to implode: it might be thought the Prime Minister has more substantive issues to consider than a footballer’s dental indiscretions. Which, of course, may well be the reason he decided to make comment.

It was self-evident that Suárez had been a naughty boy, so here was an easy opportunity to occupy the principled high ground. This was a disciplinary infraction whose simple black and white moral boundaries contrasts with the fug of grey that constitutes most of the issues that confront him. Here was a chance to appear unequivocal in the midst of daily equivocation.

Thatcher’s death prompted much discussion of the change in football’s prominence since her days in power. She regarded the game with ill-disguised contempt. These days, however, such is its place in the country’s cultural discourse, politicians of every hue are now obliged to demonstrate an interest, much as US presidents are required to show a facility at golf.

The shift can be traced to Tony Blair, who had no feeling for football, but was persuaded by Alistair Campbell that it provided an easy way to show he was an everyman. Not just through photo-opportunities like playing head tennis with a leading manager, but by passing damning comment on the England coach Glenn Hoddle while sitting on Richard and Judy’s sofa, he could prove he had his finger on the nation’s quickening pulse.

So it is with Cameron, who when it comes to publicity, is an unrepentant Blairite. Last May, he was careful to be pictured celebrating Chelsea’s Champions League victory while attending a G7 summit. That stage-managed shot provided quick visual association with triumph. Now here he is, like Blair with Hoddle, passing comment on football’s pantomime villain of the moment.

You can see why his people want him to do it: football provides opportunity to appear a man of the people. He can be seen celebrating and moralising just like the rest of us. Everyone else is talking about Suárez, so why shouldn’t the Prime Minister have an opinion?

Well, here’s why. In the wider scheme of things, this is the most minor of issues, a passing disciplinary infraction that has no implications beyond the football pitch. Is it really likely that Suárez’s kindergarten behaviour will now be inspiring a rash of lookalike assaults in playgrounds across the country? No. The truth is it is a trivial matter, about as worthy of comment as the plot developments in a television soap opera. Prime Ministers, you might hope, should be concentrating their moral judgment on more pressing things.